2) Review “SEE NO EVIL” by Maire Leadbeater
3) Kidnapping West Papuan children to harvest their organs?
-----------------------------------
1) NZ Labour MP Poto Williams gave this speech at the Special Evensong for West Papua held at Christchurch Transitional Cathedral last night,
Poto Williams
MP for Christchurch East
Assistant Speaker
25/11/18 Transitional Cathedral, 5pm
Service of worship dedicated to praying for the end of Colonisation of West Papua
Human rights were first expressed in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and in several international treaties since then. Countries who sign up to these treaties are obliged to include the rights in their own domestic laws.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights sets out the basic human rights that should be protected for everyone. New Zealand, led by Prime Minister Peter Fraser, played a key role in drafting the Declaration along with representatives from around the world.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, along with the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights, together make up the International Bill of Human Rights. Both of the Covenants came into force in 1976. They set out everyday rights such as the right to life, equality before the law, freedom of expression, and the rights to work and education.
Indigenous People’s human rights are protected under the international treaties and conventions, as well as by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (or “UNDRIP”).
The United Nations General Assembly adopted a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in September 2007. It was described by the UN as “a landmark declaration that brought to an end nearly 25 years of contentious negotiations over the rights of native people to protect their lands and resources, and to maintain their unique cultures and traditions.”
The New Zealand government officially endorsed the UNDRIP in 2010, after opposing it for almost three years.
The Declaration sets out a universal framework of minimum standards for the survival, dignity, well-being and rights of the world’s indigenous peoples. The Declaration addresses both individual and collective rights; cultural rights and identity; rights to education, health, employment, language, and others. It declares discrimination against indigenous peoples unlawful and promotes their full and effective participation in all matters that concern them. It also affirms their right to remain distinct and to pursue their own priorities in economic, social and cultural development. The Declaration explicitly encourages harmonious and cooperative relations between States and indigenous peoples.
Actions by the government of Indonesia have been noted as a concern by advocates for human rights. Both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have criticised the government on multiple subjects. Although the country has had national human rights institutions, the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM) since 1993, which enjoys a degree of independence from government and holds UN accreditation, the commission itself has little effect as it was not given any legal teeth against discriminatory practices committed by the government.
International human rights organisations have criticised the Indonesian government's handling of protesters from the Free Papua Movement (OPM) in the Papua conflict, in which the OPM seeks the secession of Papua and West Papua. A report to the Indonesian Human Rights Network by the Allard K Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic, Yale Law School alleges human rights violations in the region. The Indonesian military denies allegations of human rights abuses in Papua.
We have as the sovereign country of New Zealand railed against Human Rights abuses in other nations and hold that as a principle of participation in the global community. However on the matter of supporting the self determination of the indigenous people of West papua we remain silent. When the international petition seeking a free vote for West Papuans was presented at the NZ parliament, only 4 members of the New Zealand parliament signed it.
Examination of the Coalition agreement and the confidence and supply agreement of the NZ Government in this the 52nd Parliament, show no agreements in the International Human Rights field and certainly nothing about West Papua.
West Papua was originally populated by Melanesian people some tens of thousands of years ago. After little contact with the Western world, it was finally formally colonised by the Netherlands in 1898. The islands that now make up Indonesia were also colonised by the Dutch but when the Republic of Indonesia became an independent nation state in 1949, West Papua did not join the country.
The Dutch government recognised that West Papua was geographically, ethnically and culturally very different to Indonesia and so the Dutch government began preparing West Papua for its own independence throughout the 1950s. At the end of 1961, West Papua held a Congress at which its people declared independence, and raised their new flag – the Morning Star.
But within months the dream was dead. The Indonesian government wanted all of the former Dutch colonies in the Asia-Pacific region and the Indonesian military soon invaded West Papua. Conflict broke out between the Netherlands, Indonesia and the indigenous population regarding control of the territory. Unable to secure enough support for its invasion of West Papua, the Indonesian government turned to the Soviet Union for help.
It was the height of the Cold War and the US government was worried that Indonesia seeking Soviet Union support might increase the spread of communism in South East Asia. In a letter from the American President to the Dutch Prime Minister, the US government strongly urged the Dutch government to hand over West Papua to Indonesia, in an attempt to appease a communist friendly Indonesian government.
The US government managed to engineer a meeting between Indonesia and the Netherlands resulting in the New York Agreement, which in 1962 gave control of West Papua to the United Nations and one year later transferred control to Indonesia. The Papuans were never consulted. However, the agreement did promise them their right to self determination – a right which is guaranteed by the UN to all people in the world.
The United Nations decolonisation committee did not accept a petition signed by 1.8 million West Papuans calling for an independence vote.
The petition, presented by the independence leader Benny Wenda asked the UN to appoint a special representative to investigate abuses and to put West Papua back on the decolonisation agenda.
But the UN decolonisation committee says the West Papua cause is outside its mandate, which extends only to the 17 states identified by the UN as "non-self governing territories."
The committee's chair and Venezuela's representative to the UN, Rafael Ramírez, says he had received no formal petition document, and his office had been "manipulated" for political purposes.
Mr Ramírez also says the committee accepts Indonesia's sovereignty over West Papua, which took control of the western half of New Guinea in 1969.
In a statement, Indonesia's UN representative, Triansyah Djani, who sits on the committee, called Mr Wenda's petition a hoax and separatist propaganda.
NZ Labour MP Louisa Wall has called for West papua to be included on decolonisation list.
Vanuatu's Prime Minister Charlot Salwai, a long time supporter of West Papuan self-determination, told the General Assembly in New York that decolonisation must remain on the UN agenda.
He said the Human Rights Council must investigate human rights abuses in the Indonesian provinces.
The Marshall Islands president, Hilda Heine, told the assembly's 73rd session that the Pacific Islands Forum supported "constructive engagement" with Indonesia on the issue.
While Tuvalu's Prime Minister Enele Sopoaga continued his call for recognition of the indigenous people.
Indonesia rejected what it called attacks on its sovereignty with vice president Muhammad Jusuf Kalla demanding respect for its territorial integrity.
Indigenous west Papuans do not have access to health and education in the same way of other in Indonesia. According to statistics, the province's overall health status is the lowest in Indonesia. Indonesian Department of Health reports show that in the central highlands, with a population of around 400,000, there is only one hospital with 70 beds, and 15 health centres with a doctor in the 13 subdistricts covering an area of 53,000 square kilometres.
There are many remote, outlying villages which have no access to health services, health centres nor clinics. There appears to be a disproportionate emphasis placed on "family planning" rather than on hospital and medical services throughout the province. A local Indonesian health worker has stated that in one remote region of 40,000 inhabitants, 100 per cent of females of child-bearing age are acceptors of family planning.
An Indonesia-based human rights researcher says malnutrition is widespread throughout Papua as imported foods have shattered traditional diets.
West Papuans had long lived off traditional Melanesian staple foods such as sago, sweet potato and traditional pork, but these had been increasingly replaced by rice and instant noodles.
This comes as Indonesian health officials responded to a health crisis in Papua province's Asmat district where a deadly outbreak of measles had been exacerbated by malnutrition.
Papuan police last week said there were more than 10,000 malnourished people in Asmat.
Andreas Harsono of Human Rights Watch said "Their staple diet changed dramatically. Nowadays I see them consuming rice. Why? Rice is coming from their national government as their main diet."
Mr Harsono said that in Asmat people were also consuming less of the traditional sago as land was being used up for palm oil and mining.
An Indonesian health official with one of the teams Jane Soepardi told RNZ Pacific many of the children she visited last week had zero immunity.
Mr Harsono said the government had been quite speedy in getting to affected areas but that the death toll underscored Jakarta's neglect of Papuans' basic health rights.
Andreas Harsono said restrictions on access to Papua should be lifted so it could receive international assistance
We have to ask ourselves why, in the face of this overwhelming evidence are we all, NZ included, continue to be silent on behalf of West Papua. NZ was slow in east Timor, its response to West papua is glacial. A hand full of NZ MP’s are working alongside Catherine Delahunty and the other groups across the country, but our movement is slow to gain the traction.
It is also not without interference by Indonesian officials.
We face a tough battle, it is of mammoth proportions. One small Melanesian nation in the pacific sisterhood, seeking from the most powerful, one thing, the basic human right to decide for itself. We, those who support their rights to freedom, are isolated and in small pockets around the globe. Even in NZ we struggle to have a coherent movement. We cannot continue in this way. We must act as a collective, which is the pacific way. Join with our other pacific nations to stand up against the tyrannical practices imposed upon these people. Please, I urge you, to make a pledge to make a difference to the people of West Papua.
Finally to quote from Micah 6:8 He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.
————————————————————
We feature each fortnight Nicholas Reid's reviews and comments on new and recent books.
2) “SEE NO EVIL” by Maire Leadbeater (Otago University Press, $NZ49:95) “LET’S GET LOST” Text by Nicola McCloy - photographs by Jane King (Penguin / Random House, $45)
When a book is subtitled “New Zealand’s betrayal of the people of West Papua”, you know it is a book of advocacy – that is, a book arguing a case. In See No Evil, Maire Leadbeater, veteran activist in many causes, is not concerned to tell a general history of modern Papua or Indonesia, but to indict the complacency and complicity of New Zealand in Indonesia’s take-over of the western half of the land we used to call New Guinea. (Indonesians prefer to call it West Irian or Irian Jaya).
As her friend, former Green MP Catherine Delahunty says in her Foreword: “There is no claim here that New Zealand is a global superpower with the ability to turn the situation around single-handedly, but it is a wealthier neighbour whose self-interest has aligned it with state violence, torture and structural genocide.”
Leadbeater sets out her argument succinctly in her Introduction. As the Dutch decolonised in the 1940s and 1950s, and as the Dutch East Indies ceased to be, New Zealand’s government at first favoured a united and independent Papua / New Guinea. But this was the era of the Cold War, so New Zealand agreed with Australia and the United States that Indonesia would be a helpful buffer against Communism. Hence by the 1960s it joined others in giving Indonesia a free hand in West Papua.
Having set up this argument, See No Evil then delves into more detailed history. The Papuan peoples were labelled “Melanesian” by Europeans and have accepted that appellation. Racially, culturally and linguistically they are quite distinct from the Malay peoples who became Indonesians, and very few Indonesians lived in West Papua. When Papua was colonised by Europeans, the eastern half was divided between the Germans and the British. Then after the Second World War – and after brief Japanese occupation of some areas - it was administered by Australia. Meanwhile the western part was a Dutch colony.
The Dutch were apparently more benign colonisers than the British or Germans and, when they resumed control after the Second World War, they were a great improvement on the Japanese occupiers. But after 1945, the world admired the Indonesian national liberation movement, and Indonesian nationalists lay claim to all of the Asian empire from which the Dutch were withdrawing. New Zealand and Australia at first supported continued Dutch control of West Papua until such time as Papuans themselves could vote on independence. Those West Papuans who could make their wishes known were opposed to an Indonesian takeover. But by the 1950s, the US saw Indonesia as suffering from too much communist influence, hoped the Indonesian nationalist leader Sukarno would be a bulwark against Communism and therefore did not want to thwart his expansionist ambitions.
As Leadbeater sees it (in Chapter 4) the Dutch administering West New Guinea were more humane administrators than the Australians administering East New Guinea. They mixed more easily with Papuans on social occasions and were genuinely trying to form a cohort of Papuans capable of ruling the country, even if at that time, in the central highlands, there were still many Papuans beyond western influence. Walter Nash, New Zealand’s prime minister at the end of the 1950s, advocated one united and independent Papua / New Guinea. The Netherlands set out a 10-year timetable for ceding independence, under UN supervision, while continuing to train Papuans.
In 1961, a New Guinea Council was inaugurated, the Morning Star flag (of Papuan independence) was raised and local elections were peacefully and successfully held in coastal areas. But at this moment of hope, there was increasing Indonesian infiltration of West Papua. The United States, wishing to accommodate Indonesian ambitions, brokered a new “agreement” between the Netherlands and Jakarta. This New York Agreement involved allowing Indonesia to take over administration from the Dutch in 1963, after seven months of United Nations supervision, and then only after another 6 years, in 1969, to “consult” the Papuans on the question of independence. In New Zealand, the academic Kenneth Cumberland was one of the few to protest publicly against this arrangement and to still hope for a united, independent Papua.
The New Zealand government by now had very mixed feelings about Indonesia, and in 1963-65 New Zealand forces were among those who fought against Indonesia in its “confrontation” with Malaysia. America was also now worried that Sukarno used too much anti-colonial rhetoric and sometimes welcomed the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) as a major ally. It also seemed clear that as 1969 approached, Indonesia would not honour the planned plebiscite on West Papuan independence. Indonesia had already made Indonesian the only official language in West Papua.
In 1965, in Indonesia itself, some generals were assassinated. Leadbeater says this was not a communist initiative, and its perpetrators had nothing to do with main PKI, but it gave the military strongman Suharto an excuse to crack down on Communists. Between 500,000 and 1 million suspected communisits were killed by the Indonesian army and police and there was also a purge of ethnic Chinese. From this point on, Suharto was clearly taking over from Sukarno, though it was was Sukarno, with his incoherent foreign policy, who referred to 1965 as “The Year of Living Dangerously”.
By now, Indonesia was moving both troops and settlers into West Papua. Despite moneys that the Dutch had contributed as they left, Indonesia did little to improve West Papuan infrastructure or health services. There was little international protest. Increasingly New Zealand, Australia and others saw friendly relations with 112 million Indonesians as being more important than the needs or wishes of a few million Papuans.
In the central West Papuan highlands, there was a rebellion against Indonesia’s gradual takeover, but it was put down with great brutality. Finally in 1969, the Indonesian government and troops used coercion to rig a supposed “Act of Free Choice”, forcing Papuans to accept their overlordship. Western and Arab and Asian nations (such as India) accepted Indonesia’s position. In 1975, (Eastern) Papua New Guinea ceased to be under Australian control and became independent. In West Papua, there was continued guerrilla resistance throughout the 1970s, but the Papuan independence movement (the OPM) suffered factionalism and split. A dirty war was carried out by Indonesia, in which napalm and the strafing of villages played a part. Villages in the highlands were forcibly “modernised” by being re-aligned to break up tribal and family connections. By 1984, there were about 220,000 sponsored and unsponsored Indonesian migrants in West Papua and the Papuan population was being “swamped” in coastal areas and ports.
Not to be overlooked in all this were matters of economics and international investment. In the 1930s, a major oilfield was found in West Papua by an American team (Leadbeater says its existence was not revealed to the Dutch colonial government) and large seams of gold were found in the interior mountains.
By the 1990s, having bought a major concession from the Indonesian government, the Freeport-McMoRan company was controlling huge copper and gold mines, paying massive kickbacks to corrupt Indonesian officials. Freeport-McMoRan was the largest taxpayer on West Papua and the source of over half West Papua’s GDP. But it was also a major polluter and none of its profits found their way to the West Papuan people.
There were internal challenges to the Suharto regime by the 1990s. In 1997, Suharto was persuaded to step down and there was some liberal reform in Indonesia itself – but not very much, as the military still had great power. There was hope for a “Papuan spring”, with Indonesia proposing “special autonomy” (as opposed to independence) for West Papua. But this proposal was never really followed through, and the behaviour of the Indonesian army did not augur well for the future. Indonesia had lost East Timor after a popular, UN-supervised referendum there. In revenge, the Indonesian army went on a rampage in East Timor and killed much of the population before UN forces were able to take over. Such “punishment” could be West Papua’s in similar circumstances.
So far, in a bland and boring fashion, I have simply summarised the relevant history as it is narrated by Maire Leadbeater. But this ignores the main target of her criticism, which is the way successive New Zealand governments have complied with Indonesia’s absorption of West Papua. Her comments on this matter tend to come in self-contained paragraphs.
Of the massacre of communists in Indonesia in 1965, she writes: “Western nations, including New Zealand, were influential actors in the drama. From the documentation available it cannot be concluded definitively that the US or any other Western government played a direct role in fomenting the events of 1 October, but there is plenty of evidence that officials were waiting in the wings for the PKI to misstep or mount a coup so that their friends in the Indonesian military could move against them. New Zealand, as a junior partner in the Western alliance, was kept well informed.” (p.120)
Similarly, of Indonesia’s “Act of Free Choice” in 1969, she says: “The New Zealand Department of Foreign Affairs prepared a briefing paper for the New Zealand UN Mission in September. There was no attempt to disguise the fact that the Indonesian authorities used coercion, bribery, intimidation and indoctrination to achieve the desired result. But it was now done and dusted.” The New Zealand report said there was no “practical” alternative to what the Indonesians had done, Indonesians had in effect been in control of West Papua for six years, and New Zealand would therefore not protest in the UN should there be a debate on the matter. (p.157)
She notes that in supporting the Columbo Plan, New Zealand allowed Indonesian military pilots to train in New Zealand, as well as welcoming over 500 Indonesian students. In 1972, Suharto visited New Zealand and was given an effusive state reception by National Party prime minister Marshall. The same friendly attitude towards Indonesia continued with Norman Kirk’s Labour government and the later Lange government. New Zealand governments were mainly interested in trade and regional security, with little thought for the Papuan people.
Leadbeater’s final chapter has the self-explanatory title “New Zealand chooses the wrong partners, but West Papuans find Pacific allies”. In the last two decades successive New Zealand governments (National-led and Labour-led) have endorsed a common defence strategy with Indonesia; and New Zealand had programmes training Indonesian pollice. But, says Leadbeater, “The strategy of engaging with Indonesia’s security forces in an effort to improve their practice has failed. It is time for a re-evaluation, especially in the light of claims that the West Papuan people are experiencing a slow genocide.” (p.232) Leadbeater here defines genocide not as methodical extermination, but as deliberate imposition upon West Papuans of appalling living conditions, limitations of medical aid, and especially the huge influx of non-Papuan Indonesians, ensuring that the island’s culture and traditional identity are wiped out.
As a slight sign of hope, she refers to some positive news coverage of Papuan independence-seekers at times when Indonesia has eased censorship a little. She is impressed by the way churches and other humanitarians have continued to support West Papuan aspirations and the favourable media coverage Papuan leaders receive when they visit New Zealand. But in her “Conclusion”, she still notes that the current Labour-led government of New Zealand has essentially continued the same policies of preceding governments, making trade and good relations with Indonesia their priorities.
I might have a very few little quibbles with this book. The tone is lowered when that old charlatan Rewi Alley is quoted as a reliable source (pp.126-127). The survey of Indonesian events probably underplays the upsuge of popular Muslim feeling that was a major factor in the anti-communist movement – and the fact that Indonesia now is a very Islamic country aligned with some questionable forces.
These are, however, quibbles only. This is a detailed work of polemic. I ended it thinking how similar Indonesia’s gradual and often brutal conquest of West Papua has been to another, and even more lethal, conquest by a totalitarian nation. Just as Indonesians “swamp” Papuans, so do Han Chinese “swamp” Tibetans as China has taken over Tibet and suppressed its culture. And the pile of corpses there has been even greater. Now the Chinese are apparently following the same policies among the Uyghur people of its westernmost province.
-------------------------------------------
3) Kidnapping West Papuan children to harvest their organs?
NOVEMBER 26, 2018
We routinely receive disturbing reports of violence and arrests happening in West Papua. Because there is a lack of media presence on the ground inside West Papua, campaigns like ours are often the first point of contact for the people of West Papua to tell the outside world about human rights abuses.
In a horrific report circulating around social media and the Indonesian news site Marijinnews.com, an incident that resulted in at least one shooting victim being rushed into emergency surgery, and the arrests of a reported 27 Papuans, started because Merauke residents “were horrified by the issue that developed some time later in the region over the widespread kidnapping of children to be taken kidneys and other vital organs for sale.”
According to the Marijinnews report, because of concern for the safety of their children, residents were in pursuit of possible kidnappers who had entered their village. As residents had been unsuccessful in finding the unknown persons they abandoned their search and were headed to their homes. At this time police arrived and instructed the search party to go home. In response, someone supposedly told the police to go home, and a conflict ensued. The incident resulted in beatings, arrests, and one man who remains in intensive care after surgery from being shot from behind.
Secretary General of the Union of Catholic University Students of the Republic of Indonesia(Perhimpunan Mahasiswa Katolik Republik Indonesia/PMKRI) Merauke Branch said “We from the PMKRI Merauke Branch strongly condemn this inhumane act. Not only because there are our members who are victims but this is a matter of how the police function to protect and serve the community.”
Buried from what should be the lead of this urgent story is the report about “widespread kidnapping” of children whose organs are allegedly being sold. If this is the case, where are all of the investigative journalists from every international news outlet getting to the details of this alarming situation? If this is in fact a “widespread” issue, how can it, at the very least, not be reported in Indonesian newspapers? Why are Merauke residents and a Catholic student union group policing their own village? The fact that they felt they need to secure their own children, and have a confrontational relationship with Indonesian police, is a very telling indicator that something is deeply wrong here.
The complete truth about what is happening in West Papua can only be told if journalists are given open and unrestricted access to the region. In response to criticism over the lack of access, the Indonesian government says all journalists have to do is apply for permits. It is commonly known that few of these permits are granted, and even when they are, journalists are kept under heavy surveillance. To read more about the lack of press freedom in West Papua please read the accounts of journalists Victor Mambor and Cyril Payen detailed in the New Internationalistarticle Pressed into silence: West Papua, Indonesia, & World Press Freedom Day
-------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.